In the academic professions, publications are essential for high-stakes decisions about employment, recognition, and promotion. Therefore, impartial frameworks are needed for evaluating the rigor of scholarly physicians’ bibliographies. This article provides objective criteria for evaluating bibliographies based on author position, publication type, impact, volume, thematic focus, and trajectory. Key threats to the fair assessment of physicians’ bibliographies include disparities regarding underrepresentation and professional opportunities, not recognizing the successes of disadvantaged authors, and exploiting publications to gain favor and abuse positions of power. Unbiased criteria for evaluating bibliographies mitigate these threats to fair assessment.